[18529] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Q:Why router with ATM interface comes out earlier than pure SONET interface?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (brad)
Mon Aug 3 19:27:00 1998
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:07:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: brad <brad@poofy.tbn.tm>
To: Christian Kuhtz <ck@bellsouth.net>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <002a01bdbef7$e9a5aaf0$2b0698cd@oreo.eng.bellsouth.net>
> Well, that, and then you see all the applications in the corporate world,
> all of them built on IP. Not on ATM. What do you think is going to drive
> innovations and requirements on the service provider side? Service
> providers aren't just here because somebody thought it was cool to have
> service providers.
I don't think it is an ip vs atm issue as it is an ip/other protocols
are superior to ip/atm for reasons directly related to cost (i.e.
nic deployment, cell tax etc.).
> And if a service provider uses fundamentally different technologies and
> approaches to solving the problem of the customers in an attempt to generate
> revenue, the service provider better be running similiar technology (like
> the customer). Otherwise it'll hardly be efficient.
all that matters is $$$ or ($$$)
> building an ATM core. One of these days someone will get the idea that MPLS
> is intended to be connectionless.
>
> The connectionless way of looking at the world makes sense in an IP world.
> It doesn't make much sense to folks who have done circuit switching for
> their entire lives (or most of it). I just hope that the awakening doesn't
> come at too high of a price to the latter.
>
Could you please define what you mean by connectionless?
> We usually assume 25% cell shredder tax on ATM vs. POS. At OC-48, you'll be
> blowing an OC-12 in framing. Seems like an awful waste of bandwidth to me.
>
Only if you are paying for it :).
